High protein diet and smoking-Any relation?

Protein is a nutrient that comes from the daily diet needed by the human beings for tissue building and the amino acids contained in the long chain molecule provide the building lock for the body. As there is a limitation with respect to absorption of many molecules across the intestine, complex foods will have to be broken down to simpler chemical entities by enzymes present in the gastrointestinal tract. Specifically proteins in the diet are hydrolysed by a series of enzymes like pepsin, trypsin etc present in excretions of stomach and intestines into amino acids which are then absorbed into the blood for further utilization by the cells. The process of building proteins from this pool of 16 odd amino acids is through anabolic metabolism and there are hundreds of such proteins which are involved in metabolism to generate energy and other vital materials needed for a healthy life.

There was a time in the last millenium when too much focus was laid on protein malnutrition and national and international agencies were working over time to provide protein rich foods to malnourished poor people across the globe. Agencies like World Health Organizations (WHO) and United Nations  International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) are in the fore front fighting against malnutrition among people with special emphasis on women and children. However during the last five decades the emphasis has shifted from protein malnutrition to protein calorie malnutrition as many believe when adequate calories are provided through traditional cereals and pulses the protein needs are automatically taken care of. But there are some countries which are over dependent on only carbohydrate rich foods like Yams and Manioc and the populations there are vulnerable to protein deficiency. Research efforts in the past as well as at present are going on to enrich such foods with proteins from different cheap sources.

According to nutrition experts daily need for proteins among adults is around 50-60 gm and this has to come from a balanced diet containing plant and/or animal food sources. Though plant proteins are not considered as efficient as that from animal sources like meat, fish, egg and milk because of the limiting amino acids concept, people depending on plant foods compensate such handicaps through consumption of mixed diets containing different plant protein sources and cereals. From time to time there have been reports about the ill effects of consuming animal proteins linking it to diseases like obesity, CVD etc, it is more a misconception because it is not the protein per se that can be blamed but the presence of saturated fats in such foods that cause the problem. The differentiation between red meat and white meat and preference of white meat from sources like fish by nutritionists has to be understood in the context of the quality of fat present in them. 

While insufficient protein consumption can lead to diseases like Kwashiorkar and if calorie deficiency is more prominent it causes Marasmas, both the diseases can be fatal if allowed to progress without appropriate intervention. These diseases are characterized by fatigue, pale skin and hair, muscle wasting, diarrhea, infection, edema, swollen abdomen, stunted growth and a host of other symptoms. If WHO is to be believed, one in twelve people in this planet is malnourished and almost 58% of the 62 million mortality recorded is considered to be due to malnutrition! Unbelievable indeed! It is more or less agreed that if adequate income is generated among the economically poor population, mostly in Africa, South America and Asia, they can come out of this trap on their own by buying their needs of food. The million dollar question is how can that happen unless equitable economic development takes place uniformly across the world. 

On the other side of the coin is protein over nutrition. One has to draw an analogy to fat consumption and every body agrees that over consumption will lead to obesity in the long run. With proteins such a consensus is not there still though there are reports implicating over consumption to fatal diseases like cancer,.If that protein comes from animals, chances of developing diseases like cancer are considered some what high, it seems. In a recent report emanating from the US the consequences of over eating proteins were dramatically illustrated when the lead researchers proclaimed that high protein diets, especially during middle age, can increase the chances of cancer as much as that of a smoker puffing out 20 cigarettes a day. This conclusion was arrived at after tracking the lives of thousands pf subjects over a period of 20 years. How far this is correct cannot be judged now unless more data come from other independent scientific groups.

Though comparing high protein eaters to cigarette smokers may be far fetched, it does convey a powerful message about the potential risks involved in those indulging in too much meat eating, especially during their middle age phase of life. An interesting historical observation supports these findings. Eskimos who eat a predominantly meat based diet have a short life span though they have powerful bodies and extraordinary stamina. Same is true with many special groups of population scattered across the world who adopt a predominantly meat based diets excluding carbohydrates in their day to day lives. The relationship between calorie intake and longevity is another phenomenon not understood well and the present studies highlighting protein intake and cancer may also be an area which will attract more scientific groups to unravel the mysteries in the coming years. 

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com 

FOOD AID AND CIVIL WARS-A DISTURBING FINDING

Food aid is vital for saving thousands of lives, especially in war-torn countries of Africa. USA, by far the most charitable nation on earth diverts a significant portion of its surplus into poor countries with the hope that people would give up armed conflicts once fed properly. The classical surmise is that poverty causes conflicts and any step taken to reduce poverty would automatically reduce the intensity and spread of such conflicts. But recent studies have thrown up disturbing trend which needs to be noted by all donor countries. According to these findings, higher the food aid more will be the tendency to prolong the conflict or begin new conflicts. Incidences of insurgency and armed rebellion invariably increase whenever the US food production generates huge surpluses! 

The above conclusion is based on a scientific analysis of food aid from the US and its consequences during the last 35 years at Harvard University and the significance of the same cannot be belittled. While every body appreciates the yeoman service rendered by the US to humanity the flip side is that such aids hide another selfish agenda which compels the country to send its wheat surpluses to "needy" countries. The peculiar agriculture system that exists in the US mandates the government to buy from the farmers surplus wheat produced, whatever be the quantum at certain support prices and it becomes imperative for the government to dispose of the surplus before the next harvest. Interestingly it was found out that higher the surpluses bigger were the food aid delivered. Probably it makes sense that such humanitarian programs protect the local farmers while a host of economic activity is spurred in the form of more employment and income generation for those handling the aid.

The Study revealed that the surplus shipments of wheat had a consistent impact, albeit negative, on armed conflicts in developing countries who receive such aids. It came out that following high production years in the U.S., regular recipients of aid experienced a jump in both the onset and duration of violent conflict within their borders. The authors of the study further averred that for every 1000 tons increase in U.S. food aid, there was increased incidence of civil conflict by 0.38 percentage points. The same shipment also decreased the probability of an existing civil war ending in a single year by between 0.48 and 0.61 percentage points. Further it was concluded that in a country, already experiencing a conflict, the extra wheat shipped by the U.S. in response to a bumper crop makes it more likely the conflict would continue and if there is not already a conflict, the increased  U.S. production could create new conflicts in such countries. What a tragedy indeed!.

Why is this contradiction? Probably the insurgent groups get as much benefit from distributed foods as those targeted for receiving such aids. It is a fact that in many cases the US government does not identify the constraints in delivering the aid to the targeted beneficiaries and the hurry with which these aids are dispatched because of local storage limitations makes it difficult to work out the distribution logistics properly. It is not realized that many developing countries suffering from civil conflicts due to one reason or the other do not have good road networks or transport infrastructure, making it easy to hijack such supplies by warring groups denying the food to those who really deserve. Besides opposing war groups steal or seize food from refuge camps for buying weapons aggravating the hunger problem as well as the local conflict.

Is there any solution to this problem? Probably none. World has to reconcile to the fact that a certain percentage of food aid coming from donor countries would be diverted regardless of any precaution taken because in many war-ridden countries there is no law and order causing utter chaos and anarchy and deploying international forces for protecting the supplies may suck the latter into the local conflict. One can only console that at least a major part of food aid dies benefit and support large populations which otherwise have no hope of survival.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE FOOD SUMMIT-A RITUAL GONE THROUGH!

The Food Summit which just concluded has been termed as a ritual without achieving any thing substantial and repeating the same platitudes expressed in the last Summit, viz halving the number of hungry people in the Planet by 50% before the year 2015. The gross disinterest evident amongst the well to do nations is reflected by the scanty attendance of the heads of these countries. The disappointment is writ all around and the African nations were left wondering about their future with global aid not readily forthcoming to the extent needed. The statistics of hunger can make any one scary about future. According to the FAO one in six denizens in the world go hungry and their absolute number has swollen to 1.02 billion as per the latest count and 17000 children are supposed to be perishing every day due to food insecurity.

Lack of global initiative and global unity in the world is the root cause of putting in place a permanent mechanism for hunger alleviation of a durable nature. It is vital that both the developed world and the developing countries come together and extent support for a global initiative in the war against hunger. Developing countries themselves need to do more to support their farmers, especially in the African continent. Richer countries and U.N. agencies have to be very proactive in increasing funding directly to the third-world country's farmers who need quality seed, efficient quality fertilizers and enhanced access to credits. According to the FAO, the estimated financial aid that is required works out to about $40 billion for investment in agriculture annually to combat hunger which is equivalent to 17 percent of all official development aid instead of the current 5 percent

What is galling is that no specific amounts have been committed during the Summit creating some doubts about the future of aid programs originating in the developed countries. While in absolute terms aid amounts are sizable, the relative proportion invested in agricultural sector needs to be increased, if increased aid flow does not materialize, sacrificing or postponing non-food investments. Late Norman Borlaug often expressed his view that what Africa needs is a Green Revolution similar to that occurred in Asia in sixties and seventies of the last millennium and this is where investments ought to be made.

One of the critical issues is the over eagerness of multinational companies, backed by rich countries to sell GM technologies to African countries which cannot be considered viable under the conditions prevailing in the continent. It is inexcusable for the First World to tie economic assistance to GM technology in the name of modernization of agricultural sector in these poor countries. The input intensive and restrictive seed generation properties associated with GM technology, combined with uncertainties about yield and crop failure make the farmers weary about the new technology. Economic assistance must come with no strings attached, if the recipients are going to be really benefited. In the interest of a peaceful world and congenial growth atmosphere, cooperation, understanding and mutual appreciation amongst all nations are prerequisites.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com